If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I bet that I could tailor a Kernel + Initrd to my specific hardware and get a super fast boot too. Why is this news? MeeGo doesn't support the same vast quantities of hardware that Ubuntu or Fedora does, so it makes sense that some time would be lost on boot.

At any rate, as your 11.04 boot time article pointed out, boot times in Ubuntu have regressed greatly. Your same hardware booted 10.04 (which some of us are still running, including me) in 18 seconds, which is pretty much on par with MeeGo.

Comment

Fedora 14 is not really an interesting test subject, Fedora 15 would be much more interesting with the new systemd. Also the netbook you're testing with is only a single core; wondering how much time you'd shave off by using a dual-core, if any. Even the cheapest netbooks come in dual-core variant nowadays, so there's not really a reason to buy a single-core machine nowadays.

Comment

I like to completely power down my pc, it wastes 2,4W on standby and 4 W on suspend to ram. Some days I don't use my computer so , why I have to waste 4 W / Hour during 48 hours??

In that case go ahead and power down the machine. Nobody is talking about over extended periods of days. Since you are not using the system in a multiple up/down fashion during the day then a 45 second boot shouldn't bother you. After all it means you lost a maximum total of 44 seconds waiting for a boot during that period.

This wikipedia article explain the actual problem with stand-by power consumption:

"Standby power, also called vampire power, or phantom power, refers to the electricity consumed by many appliances when they are switched off or in standby mode. The typical power loss per appliance is low (from 1 to 25 W) but when multiplied by the billions of appliances in houses and in commercial buildings, standby losses represent a significant fraction of total world electricity use.[1] According to Dr Alan Meier, a staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, standby power accounts for as much as 10% of household power-consumption. A study in France found that standby power accounted for 7% of total residential consumption; while further studies have put the proportion of consumption due to standby power as high as 13%.[2]
The IEA estimates that standby produces 1% of the world's CO2 emissions.[3] To put the figure into context, total air travel contributes less than 3% to global CO2 emissions.[4]"

The problem with any of these studies like this is that even if you did shut down everything to a zero power state the power sources still keep generating away despite that small load not being there. So unless a power source goes under strain where additional fuel is required to maintain the supply then there is no real increase in emissions as those emissions would be present as the source has to be in a ready state should awaiting a increased load. In reality you are more then likely wasting more energy with no extra increase in pollutants with a light load. A large power supply with a light load actually is very inefficient as once the resource is transformed to power it is not stored, it is used or lost.

Comment

In that case go ahead and power down the machine. Nobody is talking about over extended periods of days. Since you are not using the system in a multiple up/down fashion during the day then a 45 second boot shouldn't bother you. After all it means you lost a maximum total of 44 seconds waiting for a boot during that period.

I mainly use linux which boot up time is 20 sec, fairly tolerable to me.

The problem with any of these studies like this is that even if you did shut down everything to a zero power state the power sources still keep generating away despite that small load not being there. So unless a power source goes under strain where additional fuel is required to maintain the supply then there is no real increase in emissions as those emissions would be present as the source has to be in a ready state should awaiting a increased load. In reality you are more then likely wasting more energy with no extra increase in pollutants with a light load. A large power supply with a light load actually is very inefficient as once the resource is transformed to power it is not stored, it is used or lost.

Sorry I don't agree , your argument is a little simplistic, do you deny what IEA have already studied?

Of course power source generated by electric plant have to be consumed instantly or get loss, although you loss one important aspect of power generation: you have to keep in mind that power plants and future plans to construct new power plants adapts to user demands, if users demands decreases power plants can make plans to output less power and there is minor demand to construct future power plants. Stand-by power represents 7% - 13% of total power consumption, we are not talking about 0,5% or 1%, so this is relevant.

Comment

Sorry I don't agree , your argument is a little simplistic, do you deny what IEA have already studied?

Of course power source generated by electric plant have to be consumed instantly or get loss, although you loss one important aspect of power generation: you have to keep in mind that power plants and future plans to construct new power plants adapts to user demands, if users demands decreases power plants can make plans to output less power and there is minor demand to construct future power plants. Stand-by power represents 7% - 13% of total power consumption, we are not talking about 0,5% or 1%, so this is relevant.

Unless you are operating that power source at near 100% efficiency you are not achieving any reduction in emissions at all. As far as the IEA goes I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to industry sponsored industries. Those same agencies are comprised of industry giants who tell us that their solution is safe power. It is also of no surprise that "studies" are usually done to try to validate the research to give the appearance the the research is justified in order to get more research funding.

Comment

No, I couldn't care less about keeping an app open. If I have work in progress, I know how to save it and close the app.

Agreed, then you might as well just reboot. But for me (and many others I guess), that's the point. Populating several virtual desktops with dozens of applications, terminals, editors, stuff is something I want to avoid at all cost. I want to have the system back the exact same way I left it.

Comment

Unless you are operating that power source at near 100% efficiency you are not achieving any reduction in emissions at all.

Huh, and this affirmation? Are you a power plant expert? Do you know the cost associated with exploiting a power plant at 60% or 80% or 100% varying along the day, human, materials , logistic, emissions...?? Or may be you have simply no idea and pointed your personal point of view?

As far as the IEA goes I take everything with a grain of salt when it comes to industry sponsored industries. Those same agencies are comprised of industry giants who tell us that their solution is safe power. It is also of no surprise that "studies" are usually done to try to validate the research to give the appearance the the research is justified in order to get more research funding.

Well at least they make studies / statistics, which can be more or less accurate, but those studies are not based on personal opinions.